4
$\begingroup$

In Hirschhorn's "Model Categories and Their Localizations", section 15.7, there's the following corollary to the preceding Proposition:

$\mathbb{Corollary}$ 15.7.2 If $\mathfrak{M}$ is a cellular model category and $\mathfrak{C}$ is a Reedy category, then the cofibrations of the Reedy model category on $\mathfrak{M}^{\mathfrak{C}}$ are monomorphisms.

I think we can use this to prove the following: If we've got a Reedy model category $\mathfrak{A}$ and a category $\mathcal{B}$ in which all cofibrations are monomorphisms and weak equivalences are pointwise (i.e. just a rough way to say that it's equipped with an injective model structure) then in the category $\text{Psh}(\mathfrak{A},\text{Psh}(\mathcal{B},\textit{Ssets}))$ all Reedy cofibrations are monomorphisms.

Is there a way to have the converse work for some types of Reedy model categories? (By converse I mean all monomorphisms being Reedy cofibrations)

If I'm not mistaken, this will imply some sort of relation between model structures.

Edit: Big thanks to Simon for pointing out the vague, unexplicit nature of the question.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I'm not the person who downvoted, but I find that what you are asking is not very clear. The paragraph starting with "I think" is very confusing. Do you mean that $\mathfrak{U}$ is a Reedy category ? and what do you mean by "$\mathcal{B}$ is a category where cofibrations are monomorphisms...", are you talking about the injective model structure on $Psh(\mathcal{B},Ssets)$ ? also it is not clear a converse to what you are asking ? to the corollary, to the statement in the above mentioned paragraph ? maybe you should state more explicit what kind of statement you would like. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2022 at 14:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ And the title of the question should give a hint to the topic, something like Cofibrations of Reedy model categories would be much more informative. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2022 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot @SimonHenry for the comment, I've tried to be a bit more explicit now. $\endgroup$
    – Amartya
    Commented Jun 7, 2022 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Jochen for the advice, I've tried to modify the title accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – Amartya
    Commented Jun 7, 2022 at 16:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Somewhat related $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 3, 2022 at 17:22

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I believe what you are after is the notion of "elegant Reedy category"

This sort of things isn't true for a general Reedy category, but for an elegant one $R$ (see the link for the definition) if $\mathcal{E}$ is a Grothendieck topos (for e.g. simplicial presheaves on something) in which the cofibration are the monomorphisms, then in $\mathcal{E}^{R^{op}}$ the Reedy cofibration are exactly the monomorphism. This is explained on the nLab page linked and you'll also find reference about this there.

The last section of the nLab page gives many exemples of elegant Reedy category. In particular, Reedy categories that satisfies an analogue of the Eilenberg-Zilber lemma are elegant Reedy category (most exemple come from this).

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .